By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Chik-Fil-A Appreciation Day sets sales record for the company...

Ssenkahdavic said:

The problem is with the boycott itself. They are boycotting a restaurant because of the views of its CEO, views which many support.

What's the problem with boycotts? Organized boycotts can be ugly and censorious in tone, sure, but since no business is entitled to your money, I don't see the problem with it.



Around the Network
Zappykins said:
homer said:
@Mr Khan
That wasn't the owners intent. -_-. Chick fil a is freaking closed on Sunday. They are a christian corporation. Are you surprised he would stand up against an act that the bible explicitly states as immoral and repugnant? Didn't his father teach sunday school for what... 71 years or something?

Yes, many Christian Churches are advocates and supports of Same Sex Marriage.  So it's not a guarantee that because some claims to be a Christian that they are a supporter of marriage discrimination.

Notice he is not trying to prevent divorced people from getting married.  Or people with tattoos. Or the stoning of women, etc.   He just is a pick and chooses what he wants to believe.

Plus, show me the part where Jesus said same sex couples couldn’t get married?   

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&version=KJV 

You would need to show where Jesus consider anyone but a man and a woman as the basis of marriage to be able to show that Jesus supported gay marriage.  Without this, you go to other scriptures to find it.  But Jesus refers to God joining a man and woman together, not two of the same gender.

Of course, people are free to do whatever they want, including someone believing they can marry a shoe.  But, that doesn't mean that it is what Jesus would say or the Christian religion, or the Bible.



As far as the protest and whatnot goes, I will have Chik-Fil-A AND Ben and Jerry's, eventhough both companies end up on other sides of this issue, as per this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/02/living/chick-fil-a-reaction/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

If that Oreo exists, I will likely avoid it, because it looks too large to try to eat.



badgenome said:
Ssenkahdavic said:

The problem is with the boycott itself. They are boycotting a restaurant because of the views of its CEO, views which many support.

What's the problem with boycotts? Organized boycotts can be ugly and censorious in tone, sure, but since no business is entitled to your money, I don't see the problem with it.


Not a problem with the act of boycotting, just with this exact boycotting effort, due to people being divided each step of the way.  It was an answer to the OPs question about boycotting doing the exact opposite of what it was entended to do. 

I completely support anyones right to boycott anything, whether I agree with it or not.  



Ssenkahdavic said:

Not a problem with the act of boycotting, just with this exact boycotting effort, due to people being divided each step of the way.  It was an answer to the OPs question about boycotting doing the exact opposite of what it was entended to do. 

I completely support anyones right to boycott anything, whether I agree with it or not.  

Oh, sorry. I totally misread your post.



Around the Network
richardhutnik said:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/02/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-sets-record-restaurant-chain-says/?hpt=hp_t3

What is seen with activists is the belief that they can boycott a company and cause it to change its way.  They operate under the assumption that prople outraged at a company will cause the company to be hurt so badly, it changes its views.

However, what happens when you have a situation where an issue is divisive and polarizes?  Apparently with the whole Chik-Fil-A bruhaha, calls to boycott and protest lead people on the other side to do the opposite, to get people to shop at the place.  End result?  Well, the company apparently set sales records on Appreciation Day.

So, I would have a question: In case of polarizing issues, can a boycott really be effective, or does it just make a company a stronger niche brand and improves its bottom line by creating a stronger identity for itself?  I would ask to focus on the effect of a boycott here, rather than have this turn into a discussion over gay marriage.  I say this request because there is another thread on that subject.  Also, it doesn't help any regarding the issue if people on one side or another are spun as spawns of evil.

Sure boycotts can be effective. Just as supporting companies who you feel not only supply products you enjoy but may even have people within them (in this case it is the CEOs personal views) whom mirror your own beliefs or values.

I am inferring from your post that you are disapointed that after the bruhaha over the CEO of Chik-fil-a making pubic his own personal beliefs that the boycott hasn't worked out the way you hoped?

It isn't the fact that Chik-fil-a's CEO does not support gay marriage that has ignited the ardent support from those whom have participated in the recent sales jump. It is the attack on the company for having a CEO who is willing to say his religious beliefs in public. Iguarantee had the supporters of gay marriage dismissed his comments and ignored them this whole thing would have been forgotten in a day.

The boycott so-far has failed because there is no support for it. And why should there be? He has the right to believe any way he wants to WITHOUT retribution from the gofernment that is suppse to protect his right to speak. Shortly after his comments he had state and local governemt officials attacking the company he works for which was wrong.

Now gay Americans have every right to boycott Chik-Fil-A and even speak out against the company. Just as other Americans have the right to support the company by patronizing its stores. And so when that happened the boycott failed. But so what? How does that in any way hurt gays? So they won't get some of the yummy delicious chicken products from Chik-Fil-A, by choice of course.



So when is it sh-t on the floor day at Chik Fil-A. I will eat Pop Eyes, Drink down a heavily coated fiber water and show up ready to roll.



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19&version=KJV

You would need to show where Jesus consider anyone but a man and a woman as the basis of marriage to be able to show that Jesus supported gay marriage. Without this, you go to other scriptures to find it. But Jesus refers to God joining a man and woman together, not two of the same gender.

Of course, people are free to do whatever they want, including someone believing they can marry a shoe. But, that doesn't mean that it is what Jesus would say or the Christian religion, or the Bible.

The point about the shoe. Ok the 2 gays or consenting adults. They both agree to it. The Shoe or animal or whatever your going to say can't express itself about how it feels about it, So it is not consenting.

Now your religion doesn't belong in our government. Seperation of church in state. Remember the last time that happened or country's where religion rules. Lots of death, cut off heads and oppression. So with religion rule you get oppression and cut off heads. Yea I'm going to say religion is a joke and doesn't work.



spaceguy said:
So when is it sh-t on the floor day at Chik Fil-A. I will eat Pop Eyes, Drink down a heavily coated fiber water and show up ready to roll.


no one is stopping you. go have fun with that.



thranx said:
spaceguy said:
So when is it sh-t on the floor day at Chik Fil-A. I will eat Pop Eyes, Drink down a heavily coated fiber water and show up ready to roll.


no one is stopping you. go have fun with that.

He'll be having that fun in jail. 

Edit: Oh and...No, Chick-Fil-A Did Not Support Legislation To Kill Gays